JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 05.02.2001 passed in A.S.No.171 of 1999 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 05.11.1997 passed in O.S.No.4413 of 1996 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “(i). Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the appeal when the said Ammi Reddy was also one of the partner of the Appellant's firm and on whose behest the appellant firm had entered into an agreement admittedly when the appellant firm were the real estate promoters; (ii). Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the appeal without considering the Ammi Reddy's agreement with that of the appellant's firm without passing a speaking order on that particular point when the said Ammi Reddy happens to be one of the Partner with the Appellant's firm and on whose name the appellant firm had need an agreement to sell the house in flats; (iii). Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the appeal on the ground when the said Ammi Reddy has taken the agreement for the entire portion of the land of the Scheduled mentioned property in its favour by virtue of holding a post in the appellant's firms and since the agreement to sell any flats was not done within the stipulated time on such advantage when these respondents tried to ingress into the property without any lawful authority; 3. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, had laid the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. 4. On a perusal of the plaint, it is found that the plaintiff seeks claim of title to the suit property based on the agreement dated 21.11.1969 said to have been entered into between Ch.Ammi Reddy and the plaintiff. 4. On a perusal of the plaint, it is found that the plaintiff seeks claim of title to the suit property based on the agreement dated 21.11.1969 said to have been entered into between Ch.Ammi Reddy and the plaintiff. With reference to the purchase of the suit property, even as per the case of the plaintiff, the sale price was fixed between the concerned parties at Rs.62,250/- and the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance and the further case of the plaintiff is that by way of the transfer of book entries, a sum of Rs.35,000/- was credited to the account of Ch.Ammi Reddy and accordingly, it is stated that out of the proposed construction of 20 flats, only 4 flats had been constructed and accordingly, contending that the defendants, who are the legal heirs of Ch.Ammi Reddy, had unlawfully entered into the suit property without any authority and been attempting to alienate the suit property, thereby, denying the plaintiff's title to the suit property based on the above said agreement of sale, it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief’s. 5. The defendants, in their written pleas, had, though not disputed the sale agreement projected by the plaintiff as such, however, disputed the claim of the plaintiff that it has paid the entire sale consideration as sought to be projected in the plaint and in particular, the defendants have disputed the alleged payment of Rs.35,000/- stated to have been credited to the account of Ch.Ammi Reddy by way of the transfer of book entries and further, it is also stated that even as per the admitted case of the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.2,250/- remain not paid and accordingly, it is contended that the plaintiff's partnership did not function at all and accordingly, no endeavour has been made to put up the construction of flats as envisaged by the plaintiff firm and the plaintiff firm's had given a go bye to the agreement entered into and inasmuch as only 3 flats were sold and the remaining one flat not sold and the suit property remaining only in the possession and enjoyment of Ch.Ammi Reddy and after his death, with the defendants, who are the legal representatives of Ch.Ammi Reddy, it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff cannot lay any claim of title to the suit property based on the projected sale agreement and accordingly, contended that the plaintiff's firm is not existence on the date of the suit in particular and prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. 6. The Courts below had accepted the defence version and resultantly, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Materials placed on record go to show that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property based on the sale agreement dated 21.11.1969, the copy of which has been marked as Ex.A1. Other than Ex.A1, there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiff for claiming title to the suit property. As seen from the evidence tendered in the matter, it is found that the plaintiff has failed to establish the claim of payment of Rs.35,000/- said to have been credited to the account of Ch.Ammi Reddy by way of the transfer of book entries. With reference to the abovesaid claim, there is no material placed on record. Further, it is found that as seen from the plaint averments, a sum of Rs.2,250/- remained unpaid. With reference to the abovesaid claim, there is no material placed on record. Further, it is found that as seen from the plaint averments, a sum of Rs.2,250/- remained unpaid. Thus, it is found that the plaintiff has failed to establish that Ex.A1 agreement had been put into action and the plaintiff had endeavoured to proceed with the same by paying the sale consideration to Ch.Ammi Reddy and put up the flats as envisaged under the said agreement. It is found that only 3 flats had been put up and sold and thereafter, there is no proof placed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff firm had continued to exist and any endeavour had made by the plaintiff to put up the construction of the flats as sought to be projected by them. In such view of the matter, the Courts below had rightly found that the sale agreement Ex.A1 had not been enforced further as per law and as the plaintiff's firm itself had failed to exist and function thencefrom, accordingly, held that based on Ex.A1 sale agreement, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek any claim of title to the suit property. 7. Though the plaintiff would claim that Ch.Ammi Reddy had transferred the title to the plaintiff and also declared his intention of transferring the suit property in his I.T. Returns, other Wealth Tax Statement, Urban Land Tax Declaration etc., with reference to the above said claim, there is no material placed on record. Accordingly, it is found that the Courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff had not evinced interest to acquire title to the suit property as per law, from Ch.Ammi Reddy or the defendants as the case may be, pursuant to Ex.A1 sale agreement and when it is found that all along, the suit property had been in the possession of Ch.Ammi Reddy and thereafter, the defendants with all the incidents of ownership and when the suit property has not been shown to be transferred to the plaintiff's firm in the manner known to law and accordingly, based on Ex.A1 sale agreement copy, it cannot be held that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff as projected in the plaint. 8. 8. The plaintiff has not placed any material whatsoever to establish that they had been put in the possession of the suit property following Ex.A1 sale agreement and further, as determined by the Courts below, the plaintiff has not claimed adverse title to the suit property and even if had claimed, no material has been placed by the plaintiff to substantiate the same and at the foremost, as above seen, the plaintiff's firm had not shown to be in existence and functioning even from the date of the sale agreement as such and accordingly, Ex.A1 sale agreement having not been put into action by the plaintiff in the manner known to law, in my considered opinion, the Courts below are justified in negativing the plaintiff's case and no interference is called for with reference to the same. In such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiff that Ch.Ammi Reddy and the defendants had been inducted as the partners of the plaintiff's firm, without there being any valid material to substantiate the same, the said case of the plaintiff also falls to the ground. 9. Based on the discussions, it is found that no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. In any event, the Courts below being found to be justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the reasonings that the plaintiff firm had failed to establish that the sale agreement Ex.A1 had been put into action and the sale price had been paid by it and the possession had been transferred to it based on the same and accordingly, the agreement having not been enforced by the plaintiff in any manner, accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are answered against the plaintiff. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.